Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Nick Thomas-Symonds (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 30 January 2019. It occurred during Debate on bill on Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill [Lords].


Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill [Lords]

As the Security Minister well knows, we have been working constructively on this Bill and I will not be opposing it on Third Reading irrespective of the outcome of various votes, but it is correct to say that, in the case in the summer in respect of which the High Court has just issued its judgment, the American embassy told the Government, when they failed incidentally to seek assurances at all, that if they asked:

“At worst, they will wind the president up to complain to the P.M.”—

the Prime Minister—

“and, potentially, to hold a grudge.”

The Foreign Office’s strong advice was to seek a death penalty assurance, so why on earth did they not do so if it was not for fear of the American President’s reaction?


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
653 c853 
Session
2017-19
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Databases Crime prevention Crime Cooperation Court orders Capital punishment Offences against children Surveillance USA Social media
Legislation
Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill (HL) 2017-19
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on hansard.parliament.uk